PubMed HealthSearch

PubMed · 3973752

Postadaptation orientation discrimination.

Abstract

An orientational difference of only 0.3-0.5 deg can be discriminated between two gratings or two lines, although psychophysical channels and cortical cells both have comparatively broad orientation bandwidths of 10-25 deg. One proposed explanation for the fineness of orientation discrimination is that, while detection is determined by the most excited orientation-tuned neural elements, superthreshold orientation discrimination is determined by difference signals between these elements [Westheimer et al., J. Opt. Soc. Am. 66, 332 (1976)]. This implies that, if stimulus orientation is changed slightly, the most important elements for discriminating this change will be those whose relative activity changes most, even though the excitation of these elements may be comparatively weak. In accord with this prediction, we found that adapting to a high-contrast grating degraded discrimination for test gratings inclined at about 10-20 deg to the adapting grating while having little effect on the detection of these inclined gratings. For test gratings parallel to the adapting grating, discrimination was improved, but detection was degraded. Either an opponent-process or a line-element model can account for these effects of adaptation. An opponent model can also explain our findings that subjects do not confound orientation change with contrast change and that suprathreshold orientation discrimination is almost independent of contrast, varying by only +/- 10% from about 3 to about 25 times contrast threshold. A discrimination model must incorporate reliable storage of spatial frequency, because discrimination was not affected by increasing the interval between grating presentations from 1 to 10 sec.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

D Regan, K I Beverley. 1985. Postadaptation orientation discrimination.. https://doi.org/10.1364/josaa.2.000147

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Another perspective on the visual motion aftereffect.

Prolonged adaptation to motion in a given direction produces distinctly different visual motion aftereffects (MAEs) when viewing static vs. dynamic test displays. The dynamic MAE can be exactly simulated by real motion, whereas the static MAE cannot. In addition, the magnitude of the dynamic MAE depends on the bandwidth of motion directions experienced during adaptation, whereas the static MAE does not. Evidently a stationary pattern does not directly activate the neural mechanisms affected during motion adaptation, whereas a dynamic visual display does. These results imply that the traditional explanation of the MAE needs modification.

Adaptation, Ocular

Human vision combines oriented filters to compute edges.

The experiments examined the perceived spatial structure of plaid patterns, composed of two or three sinusoidal gratings of the same spatial frequency, superimposed at different orientations. Perceived structure corresponded well with the pattern of zero crossings in the output of a circular spatial filter applied to the image. This lends some support to Marr & Hildreth's (Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 207, 187 (1980)) theory of edge detection as a model for human vision, but with a very different implementation. The perceived structure of two-component plaids was distorted by prior exposure to a masking or adapting grating, in a way that was perceptually equivalent to reducing the contrast of one of the plaid components. This was confirmed by finding that the plaid distortion could be nulled by increasing the contrast of the masked or adapted component. A corresponding reduction of perceived contrast for single gratings was observed after adaptation and in some masking conditions. I propose the outlines of a model for edge finding in human vision. The plaid components are processed through cortical, orientation-selective filters that are subject to attenuation by forward masking and adaptation. The outputs of these oriented filters are then linearly summed to emulate circular filtering, and zero crossings (zcs) in the combined output are used to determine edge locations. Masking or adapting to a grating attenuates some oriented filters more than others, and although this changes only the effective contrast of the components, it results in a geometric distortion at the zc level after different filters have been combined. The orientation of zcs may not correspond at all with the orientation of Fourier components, but they are correctly predicted by this two-stage model. The oriented filters are not 'orientation detectors', but are precursors to a more subtle stage that locates and represents spatial features.

Adaptation, Ocular

Polyaxonal amacrine cells of rabbit retina: PA2, PA3, and PA4 cells. Light and electron microscopic studies with a functional interpretation.

Polyaxonal (PA) amacrine cells are a new class of amacrine cell bearing one to six branching, axon-like processes that emerge from the cell body or dendritic trees within 50 microns of the cell body. These slender processes of uniform caliber branch at right angles and in many respects closely resemble the axons of Golgi type II cells found elsewhere in the brain. Of the four types of polyaxonal amacrine cell that we have recognized in rabbit retina, two have been described previously in brief communications. One of these, the PA1 amacrine cell with its interstitially displaced cell body, located in the inner plexiform layer (IPL), has been analyzed extensively in two preceding reports. This paper concerns PA2, PA3, and PA4 amacrine cells. Type 2 polyaxonal (PA2) amacrine cells, identified in Golgi preparations of whole-mounted rabbit retinas, have smaller cell bodies (9-14 microns) than the other three types and these are always displaced to the ganglion cell layer (GCL) or the inner border of the inner plexiform layer (IPL). The dendritic fields of PA2 cells are also smaller than those of other PA amacrine cells, and most of their sparse dendritic branching is narrowly stratified at the border of strata (S) 4 and 5. Some members of this more heterogeneous amacrine cell "type" are bistratified, however, and more highly branched with terminal branches rising to end in S1. PA2 amacrine cells bear a scattering of small dendritic spines and may also exhibit complex dendritic appendages arising at the ends of terminal branches in proximal regions of the dendritic tree. PA2 cells emit one to three axons from the proximal dendritic tree, and about half of the cells bear a single axon. Type 3 polyaxonal (PA3) amacrine cells resemble PA1 cells in the large size of their cells bodies (11-16 microns) and dendritic fields, but differ from the latter in placement of cell bodies, which is in the GCL, and dendritic and axonal stratification, which is multistratified, ranging from S4 to S1, with a concentration in S3 or S4 and a variable contribution to S1. PA3 cells differ from PA1 cells in several other respects, including dendritic branching which occurs at higher frequency and is biased toward temporal retina, and in characteristic bristling dendritic spines, clustered in the intermediate regions of the dendritic tree, that are longer, more variable in appearance and more tightly clustered than the small, uniform spines of PA1 cells that are clustered on proximal dendrites.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)

Adaptation, Ocular